3 ms·

Yeah, that’s how international politics work. Otherwise, what incentive does the CCP have for changing its policies? We’ve been rewarding a bad actor for decade

Yeah, that’s how international politics work. Otherwise, what incentive does the CCP have for changing its policies? We’ve been rewarding a bad actor for decades, and it hasn’t worked to change their behavior for the better. In fact, it’s just emboldened them to act in bad faith.

resters 2y ago
There was no national security justification given for confiscating TikTok. There is no US national interest-driven reason for doing so. TikTok happens to be beating Meta, Netflix, etc., and so the US government is stepping in to steal it. I'd rather have the US foster innovation and let the best company win. TikTok is more entertaining and is growing because it has better/smarter feed algorithms and content creation tools, plan and simple. Meta was an early innovator in this area but has stagnated due to revenue pressures leading to the over-promotion of low quality content. Netflix has failed to adapt.
- chaostheory 2y ago
  Yeah, my first comment already mentioned that it’s a trade war. It’s fair since our social media companies have been unable to operate in China’s domestic market for decades. It’s still banned. It’s that simple. Also Tiktok is directly owned by the CCP. It’s barely a private company, so national security concerns are justified.
  - resters 2y ago
    Economists have debunked the idea that retaliatory trade restrictions are beneficial. Not sure where you are getting your information. As you may recall from the Snowden revelations, the US government has high bandwidth data intercept stations installed at major datacenters that are expressly for the purpose of ingesting massive amounts of data. There is no need for "ownership" when this level of cooperation with government exists.
    - chaostheory 2y ago
      This is about politics and just like politics, economics isn’t a science. In fact, it’s closer to being yet another social study just like politics. > As you may recall from the Snowden revelations, That’s a non sequitur, and it doesn’t change the fact that TikTok is owned and operated by a hostile foreign government.
      - resters 2y ago
        > economics isn’t a science. Perhaps, but this is simply logic: Country A imposes tariffs that harm consumers and producers in country A and country B. That is the case before retaliatory tariffs. Once country B imposes its own, now the producers and consumers in both countries have yet more tariffs to deal with. The leap of logic that is hard for people to grasp is that countries have producers and consumers and many that occupy both roles. A friend of mine had his 3D printing business fail after US retaliatory trade restrictions prvented him from importing 5% of parts for his printers that are mainly available from China. Meanwhile competitors in the US resold 100% China-manufactured printers and still beat him in price in spite of the tariffs. Such an embarrassing example of policy having effects far different from its intentions. > That’s a non sequitur... Governments can get control of companies in consequential (privacy, etc.) ways by a variety of means, and it happens everywhere. The Snowden revelations are highly relevant only because you make the claim that the paper ownership or other irrelevant nuance of how China has control over Chinese companies is somehow relevant. It absolutely is not since the end result is exactly the same. There are many, many accounts of government using soft power to influence American firms to behave in ways that do the bidding of the state,... it is precisely analogous to what China would do with its own firms, regardless of the details.

resters 2y ago

There was no national security justification given for confiscating TikTok. There is no US national interest-driven reason for doing so. TikTok happens to be beating Meta, Netflix, etc., and so the US government is stepping in to steal it. I'd rather have the US foster innovation and let the best company win. TikTok is more entertaining and is growing because it has better/smarter feed algorithms and content creation tools, plan and simple. Meta was an early innovator in this area but has stagnated due to revenue pressures leading to the over-promotion of low quality content. Netflix has failed to adapt.

chaostheory 2y ago
Yeah, my first comment already mentioned that it’s a trade war. It’s fair since our social media companies have been unable to operate in China’s domestic market for decades. It’s still banned. It’s that simple. Also Tiktok is directly owned by the CCP. It’s barely a private company, so national security concerns are justified.
- resters 2y ago
  Economists have debunked the idea that retaliatory trade restrictions are beneficial. Not sure where you are getting your information. As you may recall from the Snowden revelations, the US government has high bandwidth data intercept stations installed at major datacenters that are expressly for the purpose of ingesting massive amounts of data. There is no need for "ownership" when this level of cooperation with government exists.
  - chaostheory 2y ago
    This is about politics and just like politics, economics isn’t a science. In fact, it’s closer to being yet another social study just like politics. > As you may recall from the Snowden revelations, That’s a non sequitur, and it doesn’t change the fact that TikTok is owned and operated by a hostile foreign government.
    - resters 2y ago
      > economics isn’t a science. Perhaps, but this is simply logic: Country A imposes tariffs that harm consumers and producers in country A and country B. That is the case before retaliatory tariffs. Once country B imposes its own, now the producers and consumers in both countries have yet more tariffs to deal with. The leap of logic that is hard for people to grasp is that countries have producers and consumers and many that occupy both roles. A friend of mine had his 3D printing business fail after US retaliatory trade restrictions prvented him from importing 5% of parts for his printers that are mainly available from China. Meanwhile competitors in the US resold 100% China-manufactured printers and still beat him in price in spite of the tariffs. Such an embarrassing example of policy having effects far different from its intentions. > That’s a non sequitur... Governments can get control of companies in consequential (privacy, etc.) ways by a variety of means, and it happens everywhere. The Snowden revelations are highly relevant only because you make the claim that the paper ownership or other irrelevant nuance of how China has control over Chinese companies is somehow relevant. It absolutely is not since the end result is exactly the same. There are many, many accounts of government using soft power to influence American firms to behave in ways that do the bidding of the state,... it is precisely analogous to what China would do with its own firms, regardless of the details.